Inside <fancheyuj...@gmail.com> writes: > But I can't follow your opinion.Why?because of the list & tuple are > placed at built-in function,so before I type 'list' unintentionally on > the pyshell and it show me "<type 'list'>", I never know that the name > 'list' is a type,I used to consider it's a function to produce 'list' > type.
That's the kind of fundamental knowledge that one gains by working through the Python tutorial <URL:http://docs.python.org/tutorial/>. The library reference is not the place for teaching that information. > so,after I figure out this matter,I have to change all my code "assert > isinstance(someobj, (type([]), type((0, ))))" to "assert > isinstance(someobj, (list, tuple))",that's not a funny job. If you think you need to do such assertions, that's a code smell; it's rare to need that kind of assertion and should only be done with good reason since it breaks polymorphism. Why are you doing it? > I hope that I can stay in the Python abstract layer to solve > problem(although go to the C API is OK but I don't want to),I'm going > to trust what the doc telling me,so I hope the doc is exact enough.And > the doc in the distribution maybe the most popular one. Including the tutorial, so now you have your homework to do :-) > @Steven D'Aprano,yes they can be used as function,but they aren't > function and shouldn't confuse newcomers by this. Agreed; however, it seems reasonable people can disagree on how much that matters. I think it should be fixed, but not enough to push for it. -- \ “Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine | `\ contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time.” | _o__) —Hippocrates | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
